Bernie’s Hypocrisy: He Attacks Hillary, But Avoids Obama

April 14, 2016

From the day he entered the Democratic primary, Bernie
Sanders has spoken of the political
“revolution” he wants in America. He’s defined
this revolution in myriad ways. It means
taking the country back from “the billionaire class.” It means
“bringing millions and millions of people into the political process, in a way
that does not exist right now.” It means
“the American people are prepared to stand up and say, ‘Yes, we’re gonna raise
the minimum wage. Yes, we’re gonna have paid family and medical leave. Yes,
we’re gonna make public colleges and universities tuition-free.’”

But a revolution is also, by definition, an overthrow of the
establishment—or at least a repudiation of its policies—and no one represents
the existing establishment more than the sitting president of the United
States. Sanders, however, has gone out of his way not to
criticize Barack Obama. Perhaps his strongest remarks came late last month
during an appearance on The Young Turks, a liberal talk show. Asked
whether Obama “is the establishment” or “is fighting against the
establishment,” Sanders waffled, “I think
probably both.... I like him, I think he’s a decent guy. But on the other
hand, as Hillary Clinton reminds us, he got more money from Wall Street than
she did.”

When it comes to Clinton, however, the Vermont senator is
far less likely to mince words. He was so eager to pin the establishment label
on her that, back in January, when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked
him about the Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood’s endorsements of
Clinton, “You know what? Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very,
very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.” Clinton
retorted
that “he’s been elected to office a lot longer than I have,” and Sanders later walked
back his remarks—about the organizations, but not about Clinton.

Why are Sanders and his supporters so critical of Clinton,
and yet have so little to say about Obama? Several obvious reasons come to
mind, and others that I can only speculate about. No matter the reason, it’s a
hypocrisy for which the Sanders camp should be held accountable.

There’s little light between Clinton and Obama on policy, so
much so that many
on the right (and some on
the left) claim that she’s running for Obama’s “third term.” Sure, she’s
more hawkish than Obama, but she’s also to the left of him on other issues such as
free trade and immigration.
So when Sanders accuses Clinton of being too cozy with Wall Street and
supporting bad trade deals, all
while downplaying his disagreements with Obama on those very same issue, it
feels too easy. This politically convenient balancing act undermines his claims
to authenticity: Wouldn’t an “authentic” candidate tell us the whole truth?
Indeed, when Clinton criticized Sanders for attacking Obama back in 2011, Sanders
called it a “low blow” and said he’s been a strong ally of the president
“on virtually every issue.”

Of course, Sanders isn’t running against Obama; it’s only
natural that he and his supporters would save his strongest criticism for his
opponent. Obama is also extremely popular among Democrats, and his overall
approval rating recently hit a three-year
high. But given that Sanders’s supporters are only slightly
less supportive of our president than Clinton supporters—whereas a recent
poll showed that 25 percent of Sanders’s supporters wouldn’t vote for
Clinton in the general election—it seems reasonable to question whether other
things are at work here.

Perhaps it’s a simple matter of personality: Obama is
consistently cool and charismatic, while Clinton can sometimes seem guarded and
uncomfortable (though she has
her cool moments too). Perhaps it’s sexism: Manyjournalistshavenoted how male
Sanders supporters treat Clinton and her supporters online. Perhaps it’s “liberal
white guilt,” a reluctance to criticize our first black president. Of course,
there is no single answer, and it varies from supporter to supporter.

What is clear, though, is that Clinton is not just embracing
Obama’s policies; she is effectively embracing his philosophy of incremental
change. And since Sanders’s candidacy rests on a rejection of incremental change, he and his supporters should be
more conscious—and vocal—about this and other vital differences with Obama. The
criticisms flung at Clinton would seem less vitriolic and hypocritical if
Sanders and his supporters would acknowledge just how many of these criticisms
ought to be leveled against our current president. If Sanders and his
supporters really don’t approve of Obama, they should be more upfront about it.
If they do approve of him, they ought to consider why they’re so opposed to
Clinton. Having it both ways is not how revolutions work.

Eric Sasson is a frequent contributor to the New Republic and GOOD. He is the author of Margins of Tolerance and the forthcoming novel Admissions.